citgohttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/5168/all
enSouth Portland Tar Sands Pipeline Defeat: Big Oil Outspends Local Grassroots 6-to-1http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/08/south-portland-tar-sands-pipeline-defeat-big-oil-outspends-local-grassroots-6-1
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Screen%20Shot%202013-11-08%20at%2010.56.29%20AM.png?itok=sRB7U_8T" width="200" height="128" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Of all the elections and ballot measures voted on around the country on Tuesday, perhaps the most egregious example of the fossil fuel industry’s money influencing an outcome was seen in South Portland, Maine.</p>
<p>Voters in the coastal city were deciding whether to approve a ballot item that would have essentially prevented the loading of tar sands crude onto ships in the South Portland harbor.</p>
<p>The proposed Waterfront Protection Ordinance, which appeared on the ballot after the <a href="http://www.protectsouthportland.org/">Protect South Portland</a> citizens group gathered enough signatures this past Spring, was voted down by less than 200 votes, out of 8,714 total votes cast.</p>
<p>In the months leading up to the vote, local residents were bombarded with media and direct mail campaigns opposing the ordinance. The week before the election, <a href="http://www.pressherald.com/politics/Oil_interests_spend__600_000_in_South_Portland_campaign_.html">campaign finance reports revealed</a> that the oil industry had pumped over $600,000 into ads and mailings opposing the measure.<br /><br />
The <a href="http://www.nowpo.org/">Save Our Working Waterfront</a> campaign received most of its funding from big oil companies and industry groups like Citgo, Irving, and the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/643">American Petroleum Institute</a>. A good chunk of the money raised - $123,427 to be exact - was used to hire the Maryland-based consultancy <a href="http://www.ddcadvocacy.com/"><span class="caps">DDC</span> Advocacy</a>, which advertises its ability to organize online campaigns and “local grassroots” advocacy.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Contrast that $600,000 with the roughly $100,000 raised by the three local groups, including Protect South Portland, to support the ordinance.</span></p>
<p>According to Crystal Goodrich, who organized the door-to-door campaign efforts for Protect South Portland, the oil industry spent more per voter - about $32 per voter in this town of just 19,000 voters - than in even the most expensive elections across the country. “The oil industry bought this election at more than $135 per vote,” said Goodrich, calculating the cost for each “no” vote.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Why would the oil industry fight so hard against the ordinance in this one small coastal town? As we’ve <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/trailbreaker-lives-how-plans-bring-tar-sands-crude-east-coast-are-going-reverse">reported previously here on DeSmogBlog</a>, the operators of the <a href="http://www.pmpl.com/about.php">Portland-Montreal Pipeline</a> have a not so secret plan to reverse the flow of their line to funnel tar sands crude from the terminus of the Enbridge Line 9, which is currently being reversed in piecemeal fashion, to the South Portland terminal.<br /><br />
There, tar sands crude could be loaded onto tankers for shipment to refineries on the Gulf Coast and abroad. The 70-year old, 236-mile long Portland-Montreal Pipeline currently carries imported crude to Canadian refineries. While operators of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline maintain that there are no immediate plans to ask for a reversal, internal documents and company actions indicate otherwise. </p>
<p>A 2012 report, <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/going-in-reverse.asp"><em>Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England</em></a>, by 19 advocacy groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, the National Wildlife Federation, and 350.org, explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line is managed by two linked companies: the Montreal Pipe Line Limited, which owns and operates the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line with its wholly owned <span class="caps">U.S.</span> subsidiary, the Portland Pipeline Corporation.</p>
<p>The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line company, as well as Enbridge Inc., have been open about their intent to move tar sands oil east through central Canada and New England. In 2011, Portland Pipe Line Corp. expressed publicly, “We’re still very much interested in reversing the flow of one of our two pipe lines to move western Canadian crude to the eastern seaboard,” treasurer Dave Cyr was reported saying. “We’re having discussions with Enbridge on their Line 9 and what it means to us.”</p>
<p>The Portland Pipe Line Corporation applied four years ago for a permit to use South Portland as the potential location for an alternate tar sands pipeline. Montreal Pipe Line Limited has also applied for a permit to build a pumping station along its right-of-way in Quebec, which would allow for the oil flow to be reversed on the Portland-Montreal link. In February 2012, however, a Quebec judge denied the permit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It should also be noted that Montreal Pipe Line Limited is owned in large part by Imperial Oil Limited and Suncor Energy. Both companies have major stakes in tar sands mining and refining operations in Alberta.</p>
<p>Despite the ballot defeat, opponents of tar sands in South Portland are optimistic about their campaign going forward. Carolyn Graney, a South Portland resident and volunteer with the Protect South Portland campaign, <a href="http://bangordailynews.com/2013/11/05/politics/preliminary-vote-totals-show-south-portland-rejecting-attempt-to-ban-tar-sands-oil-from-waterfront/">told the <em>Bangor Daily News</em></a> that, “though she was disappointed with the result, the issue was not settled.”</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I’m still feeling the excitement and momentum we have in South Portland around this issue,” said Graney. “So I’m confident we’re not going to allow tar sands into our city no matter what.”</p>
<p>Cathy Chapman, a spokesperson for Protect South Portland, echoed this sentiment.<br /><br />
“We successfully came together with our neighbors to protect our community and that’s not going away,” said Chapman. “We’re more committed than ever to keeping tar sands out of South Portland. We’re going to vigilantly watch the Portland Pipe Line Corporation, while reviewing our legal and political options. We will hold the Portland Pipe Line Corporation to its claims that it doesn’t have plans to pump tar sands through Maine.”</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14340">south portland</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9462">portland montreal pipeline</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7583">tar sands crude</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5168">citgo</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13908">irving</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/643">American Petroleum Institute</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14341">elections 2013</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6577">pipelines</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4389">Enbridge</a></div></div></div>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:52:06 +0000Ben Jervey7610 at http://www.desmogblog.comWetlands Front Group Funded By Big Oil Wants To Ensure Taxpayers Foot The Bill For BP's Gulf Destructionhttp://www.desmogblog.com/wetlands-front-group-funded-big-oil-wants-ensure-taxpayers-foot-bill-bps-gulf-destruction
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/sandra%20bullock%20restore%20the%20gulf.jpg?itok=taQG3uaF" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong><strong><span class="caps">UPDATE</span>: </strong><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/29/bullock-disowns-bp/">Sandra Bullock has issued a statement</a> through her publicist saying that, </strong></p>
<p>“Ms. Bullock was originally contacted through her attorney to be a part of the <span class="caps">PSA</span> in order to promote awareness of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. At no time was she made aware that any organization, oil company or otherwise had influence over Women of the Storm or its message. We have immediately asked for her participation in the <span class="caps">PSA</span> be removed until the facts can be determined. Her commitment to the Gulf region has been apparent for many years and she will continue to pursue opportunities that will bring awareness and support to the plight of the Gulf region.”</p>
<p>A group of oil companies including <span class="caps">BP</span>, Shell, ExxonMobil, Citgo, Chevron and other polluters are using a front group called <a href="https://www.americaswetland.com/sponsor.cfm?pageid=30&amp;cid=40" target="_hplink">“America’s <span class="caps">WETLAND</span> Foundation”</a> and a Louisiana women’s group called <a href="http://www.womenofthestorm.net" target="_hplink">Women of the Storm</a> to spread the message that <span class="caps">U.S.</span> taxpayers should pay for the damage caused by <span class="caps">BP</span> to Gulf Coast wetlands, and that the reckless offshore oil industry should continue drilling for the “wholesale sustainability” of the region. <br /><br /> Using the age-old <span class="caps">PR</span> trick of featuring celebrity messengers to attract public attention, America’s Wetland Foundation is spreading a <a href="http://www.restorethegulf.com/" target="_hplink">petition accompanied by a video</a> starring Sandra Bullock, Dave Matthews, Lenny Kravitz, Emeril Lagassi, John Goodman, Harry Shearer, Peyton and Eli Manning, Drew Brees and others. <br /><br />The video urges petition signers to “Be The One” to demand the government devise and fully fund a plan to restore the Gulf. There is no mention that <span class="caps">BP</span>, Halliburton, Transocean, Cameron, or any other oil industry player “be the one” to pay for the damage done to the Gulf. Why call on the government to once again foot the bill for this dirty industry’s reckless behavior? <br /><!--break--><br /> Perhaps the celebrities featured in the group’s videos are unaware of <span class="caps">AWF</span>’s true intent, and signed up thinking that they were helping the Gulf Coast cause in the wake of the <span class="caps">BP</span> gusher. But under the surface it sure looks like they are being used as pawns to lure the public into the oil industry’s corner, ensuring that taxpayers pick up the tab for much of the damage caused by <span class="caps">BP</span> et al to the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Coast communities, economies, and the environment. <br /><br />The celebrity video announcement leads viewers to <a href="http://RestoreTheGulf.com" target="_hplink">RestoreTheGulf.com</a> where a curious reader would learn that a group called Women of the Storm is behind the effort. But a click through to the <a href="http://www.restorethegulf.com/sponsor-and-partners/" target="_hplink">“sponsors”</a> page reveals that this effort is actually led by <a href="https://www.americaswetland.com/sponsor.cfm?pageid=30&amp;cid=40" target="_hplink">America’s Wetland Foundation</a>, which is funded chiefly by the same oil companies who have ruined the Gulf and endangered the planet with their global warming emissions.</p>
<p>The America’s <span class="caps">WETLAND</span> Foundation (<span class="caps">AWF</span>) was launched in 2002 with <a href="https://www.americaswetland.com/sponsor.cfm?pageid=30&amp;cid=40" target="_hplink">primary support from Shell Oil and a host of other oil companies</a>. <span class="caps">AWF</span> is run by the <span class="caps">PR</span> shop <a href="http://www.marmillion.com/subdetail.php?p=8&amp;s=22&amp;ss=36" target="_hplink">Marmillion+Company</a>, whose <a href="http://www.marmillion.com/subdetail.php?p=6&amp;s=6&amp;ss=3" target="_hplink">founder previously served as a <span class="caps">PR</span> manager at <span class="caps">ARCO</span></a> and staffer to various <span class="caps">GOP</span>ers. According to the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801458_pf.html" target="_hplink">Washington Post</a>:</p>
<blockquote>“Shell Oil, worried about its offshore drilling platforms, put up several million dollars for a <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign to rebrand Louisiana’s marshes as ‘America’s Wetland.’”</blockquote>
<p>A quick look at the <a href="https://www.americaswetland.com/sponsor.cfm?pageid=30&amp;cid=40" target="_hplink">sponsors of America’s <span class="caps">WETLAND</span> Foundation</a> reveals the oily underpinnings of this greenwashing campaign, with Shell serving as “World Sponsor,” and a long list of oil companies, the American Petroleum Institute and other polluting interests who back the group financially as well. <br /><br />Founded in January 2006 in response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, <a href="http://www.womenofthestorm.net" target="_hplink">Women of the Storm</a> might seem like a truly grassroots organization to the casual observer. Is it possible that they never figured out that the oil companies behind America’s Wetland Foundation had an ulterior motive in ‘partnering’ with their group - to greenwash the oil industry’s efforts to stick taxpayers with the bill for damage caused by drilling activities in the Gulf? Perhaps Women of the Storm were willing to take any help they could get, given the horrible response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by the Bush Administration. <br /><br />Anne Milling, founder of Women of the Storm, says that the organization has never received a penny directly from <span class="caps">BP</span> or any other major oil company, although she did acknowledge Women of the Storm received advisory assistance from some of these entities when originally launching the project after Hurricane Katrina. Mrs. Milling was unapologetic when asked about the prominent placement of the America’s Wetland Foundation banner on the group’s website and its various partnerships with the oil-backed group. She sees nothing wrong with <a href="http://10000birds.com/americas-wetland-foundation-and-big-oil.htm" target="_hplink"><span class="caps">AWF</span>’s cozy relationship with the same oil and gas giants</a> that are partly responsible for the coastal wetlands degradation that is the focus of her group’s concern. <br /><br />Why? Perhaps because she is <a href="http://truevoiceofthewetlands.org/millingresign.html" target="_hplink">married to R. King Milling, the chairman of America’s Wetland Foundation</a>, Mrs. Milling sees nothing wrong with the oil connections. <br /><br />America’s Wetland Foundation and Women of the Storm are partners in <a href="http://www.americasenergycoast.org/" target="_hplink">another affiliated campaign called “America’s Energy Coast”</a> whose tag line is “Shore Up, Fuel The Nation.” <br /><br /> Last fall, America’s Energy Coast <a href="http://www.americasenergycoast.org/page.php?page_ID=1" target="_hplink">released a white paper</a> called <a href="http://www.americasenergycoast.org/110409-AEC-RegionatRisk4.pdf" target="_hplink">Region at Risk: Preventing the Loss of Vital National Assets [<span class="caps">PDF</span>]</a>, which called on Congress and the Obama administration</p>
<blockquote><strong>“to resolve the maze of bureaucratic roadblocks that threaten the long-term sustainability of region.”</strong></blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">AWF</span>’s “America’s Energy Coast” white paper lays out what the oil-funded campaign is primarily concerned with protecting:</p>
<blockquote>“At risk is an engine that fuels, feeds and supports the American economy. <strong>This is the nation’s energy corridor that provides 90% of the domestic offshore oil and gas supply and is tied to 50% of the nation’s refining capacity.”</strong></blockquote>
<p>Never mind the pelicans and dolphins, this is all about oil production. In language that demonstrates fully the bastardization of the word “sustainability” by polluting interests, the paper suggests:</p>
<blockquote>“<strong>…our nation does not fully appreciate the benefits derived from these working wetlands.</strong> … The ongoing debate at the national level on the best use of the region’s natural resources has failed to recognize the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to <strong>the challenge of wholesale sustainability. ”</strong></blockquote>
<p>“Wholesale sustainability?” And by that the <span class="caps">AWF</span> apparently means:</p>
<blockquote>“<strong>… no greater threat to sustainability exists than</strong> the threat of inaction or <strong>the maze of governmental processes </strong> that prevent efficient solutions. … the <strong>long-term survival and success of this region is ultimately tied to large-scale Federal recognition and support. ”</strong> … <strong>“Among the most challenging obstacles to achieving sustainability along America’s Energy Coast are inconsistent laws, policies and regulations at all levels of government. ”</strong></blockquote>
<p>And why is the oil-backed group such a big fan of restoring wetlands and achieving <a href="http://www.americasenergycoast.org/pagedetail.php?page_ID=9&amp;detail_ID=77" target="_hplink">“A New Sustainability”</a>? Could it possibly have anything to do with protecting oil rigs and refineries?</p>
<blockquote>“<strong>These coastal landscapes provide protection to</strong> millions of people and <strong>hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property and infrastructure</strong> because they serve as buffers against hurricanes and storm surges.”</blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">AWF</span> paper even has the gall to blame global warming for threatening oil and gas infrastructure, oblivious to the irony of such an argument:</p>
<blockquote>“energy production and navigation activities are essential to America’s economic interests, but <strong>environmental threats, such as increasingly intense storms, rising sea levels, and ongoing coastal erosion and subsidence pose a significant risk to the physical infrastructure</strong> that supports these activities.”</blockquote>
<p>This week, <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coastal-leaders-support-mabus-move-on-existing-plans-to-restore-americas-wetland-99300664.html" target="_hplink"><span class="caps">AWF</span> ran ads</a> in several <span class="caps">DC</span> and Gulf Coast media outlets touting a letter the group sent to Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy. The top priority item requested in the letter:</p>
<blockquote><strong>“Accelerate [Outer Continental Shelf drilling] revenue sharing</strong> to Gulf producing states for coastal restoration.”</blockquote>
<p>That would of course mean more risky offshore drilling, one of the primary threats to the Gulf’s health, as the <span class="caps">BP</span> disaster has made clear. <br /><br />So next time you sign a petition ostensibly about ‘saving’ the Gulf ecosystem, make sure you know who is behind it first. America’s Wetland Foundation seems more interested in saving face for the oil and gas industry and tapping taxpayer coffers to protect oil and gas infrastructure than truly protecting the Gulf Coast. <br /><br /><span class="caps">BP</span> and the rest of the offshore drilling industry should “Be The One” to clean up their mess, not the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> taxpayer. <br /><br /><em><br />Co-authored by Brendan DeMelle and Jerry Cope.</em></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/643">American Petroleum Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/648">shell oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/657">ExxonMobil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1002">bp</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3440">offshore drilling</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3637">Halliburton</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5004">transocean</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5165">America&#039;s Wetland Foundation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5166">Anne Milling</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5167">BP oil disaster</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5168">citgo</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5169">gulf oil spill</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5170">R. King Milling</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5171">RestoreTheGulf.com</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5172">WomenOfTheStorm.net</a></div></div></div>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:46:54 +0000Brendan DeMelle4775 at http://www.desmogblog.com